Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nvidia\'s Response to Early DIY Quad-SLI

Last response: in Memory
Share
August 11, 2006 3:35:22 PM

We tested the latest available beta driver that also allows Quad-SLI to be enabled. Nvidia has some comments and explanations on our results for those do-it-yourselfers that want to go quad.
August 11, 2006 5:52:10 PM

Quote:

"We strongly recommend testing Quad-SLI at 8xSLI AA and 16xAF at 2560x1600, which works great in many games. If users want to run at lower resolutions and/or lower filtering levels with D3D applications, we suggest using 7900 GTX in SLI mode."


Are the jaggies really that bad @ 2560x1600, that you NEED any AA, let alone 8x ?

Quote:
n conclusion, Quad-SLI is still in its infancy, much like SLI and CrossFire were.


In my own opinion, Crossfire still_is in infancy, SLI has been around much longer.


I suspect nVidia has something up thier sleeve, for the future, because any company wouldnt last long taking this kind of heat over a 'flagship' product without having some kind of plans for it. Right now, I cannot justify spending more on a graphics sub system, than I would on a decent system, atleast not based on current benchmarks.

[EDIT]

I expect, with the release of the newer drivers on thursday, you'll only see a minor incremental performance increase, if any a all. This is atleast how it usualy works with nVidia drivers.
August 11, 2006 6:33:48 PM

I dunno how I feel about 1280x1024 @ 4xAA/8xAF being the baseline for recommending SLI... There are a lot of cards out there that handle those settings with ease on a single GPU.

I agree with THG though. Quad SLI seems like more of a "Bragging Rights" kind of investment than anything. Even then, I'd be pretty pissed if I spent $1600 on just my quad sli, and only 1/2 of my games worked right, and another person with a normal sli had a higher 3dmark than me.

I'll bide my time until DX10 and Unified shaders make their debut.
Related resources
August 12, 2006 3:23:59 AM

I recently posted a message where I address the Culling inefficiency of modern GPUs and why advancements like "Quad SLI" dont provide "that" much improvement.

Rather than re-post my message, I will simply provide a link:

GPUs versus RPUs and Physics Accelerators

I welcome comments, criticism or corrections.

I actually think ATI might be on target with their solution, especially if they wise up and start integrating optional RPU features into their cards (Using the physics card to actually boost the rendering quality beyond what modern GPU based algorithms are capable of).

Personally, I think it would be strategically advantagous if Nvidia merged with Ageia so that they could wrap the technology into their card and slowly deploy optional RPU features as well.
August 12, 2006 1:07:17 PM

simply said, quad sli suck balls!!
August 12, 2006 7:31:05 PM

Quote:
Are the jaggies really that bad @ 2560x1600, that you NEED any AA, let alone 8x ?


I would still think the filtering is necessary if you ask me.



Yeah, well, It seems to me that nVidia is grasping at straws to prove thier product (quad SLI) currently is superior. I highly doubt that any AA at 2560x1600 is needed, although, I must admit, I've never even gamed at a resolution that high YET.

Anyone who has worked around PCs for a while, and has had lots of experience with SMP, RAID, dual DDR, etc knows that doubling your hardware doesnt mean doubling your performance, ever. I personally think we first need a CPU capable of handling such a video sub system. It seems fairly obvious that quad GPUs for current systems is too much, unless something is drasticly changed, and I'd have to agree with the comment about accellerating the physics aspect of gamming, before using quad SLI.
August 12, 2006 7:46:30 PM

Let me clarify my last comment about 'doubling hardware'. Dual core CPUs currently excel in an envoirnment where there is lots of multi-tasking going on, so, just going by the basics, a game, or atleast the graphical aspect of games would also have to be multi-tasked somehow for GPUs to see its full potential. Games right now, currently do not work like this. Now, if nVidias SLI did what the original SLI (scan line interleave) did, maybe it could perform better. I do not know if this is possible, because of IP, and what not, or if this is in fact what nVidias SLI does, but I seem to recall SLI Voodoo's scaling better.
August 13, 2006 3:44:42 PM

Quad-SLI is in my world more or less like theoretical bollocks.
It's like getting to know how fast something can go and still be called a car, it's fun to know it exists, but hardly anything I will ever be able to purchase :) 
August 13, 2006 3:45:53 PM

And with "ever" I mean until it will cost about 500$, and games cannot be played without it. 8)
August 13, 2006 10:53:40 PM

Quote:
I dunno how I feel about 1280x1024 @ 4xAA/8xAF being the baseline for recommending SLI... There are a lot of cards out there that handle those settings with ease on a single GPU


I don't recall them writing that in the article. If you meant that because they said anything below 2560x1200, then there is still 1920x1200 and 1600x1200 which is still considered high.


It's in an image that nVidia released: in the article.
August 14, 2006 6:20:22 AM

Talk about a waste of money. SLI/Quad SLI and Crossfire are just diffrent scems to rope users of their money. The better option is to go with a X1900XTX, its only marginal slower.

Hope Nvidia and ATi get their freaking acts toghter and do like Intel and AMD. Dual gpus on one graphiccard would be a much better solution for all. Not to mention space saving
!